Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Temperatures?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Temperatures?

Old 3rd Sep 2018, 18:45
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 358
Temperatures?

Heatwave: 2018 was the joint hottest summer for UK

I wonder how those years compare with 976, 1003, 1006 and 1018 AD?

(OK, I know it wasn't the "UK" then, but with bits of erosion and sedimentation, consider the land-mass as being roughly comparable!)
Trossie is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2018, 19:06
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 9,792
Originally Posted by Trossie View Post
I wonder how those years compare with 976, 1003, 1006 and 1018 AD?
Or indeed with any year prior to 1910, which is when records began according to the article.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 04:40
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 748
Actually when they refer to "since 1910" they're referring only to the UK land temperature record from Met Office weather stations. There are temperature records of various types dating back much further than this for the UK, and for times before thermometers were used to create a temperature record by the Met Office itself, scientists whose job it is to understand these things have developed good estimates using temperature-driven "proxies" such as ice cores, tree ring growth, sediment layers, stable isotope analysis, trace metal analysis, radiance, etc. These are always cross-referenced to each other to ensure the most reliable estimates are derived.

Then of course you have the alternative possibility that widely respected scientists and scientific institutions are actually considerably less intelligent and less able to understand complex scientific concepts than blokes who fly planes (quite conceivable, as some of my professional flying colleagues seem to be sceptical experts on almost all known topics if their own word is anything to go by), and have just fabricated it all.
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 07:38
  #4 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 702
An equally valid headline would be "2018 fails to beat the UK record" or "Hottest day of 2018 misses the record by 3.0 degrees".

What is not mentioned is that many of the recording sites such as Heathrow are now surrounded by more tarmac, concrete and sources of direct heat such as air conditioning units than ever before.
B Fraser is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 07:49
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Top Bunk
Posts: 199
Statistics are Bollox. Can be manipulated to suit whatever loopy cause you want.
45989 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 12:37
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 71
Posts: 642
I remember the UK press being full of "it ain't half hot" type stories in summer 1967. The red tops carried photos of idiots frying eggs on a pavement as the temperatures were up around 25C (from memory).
We, in Aden, were going about our business thinking "lucky sods. I wish it was as cool as that here"! That year, I experienced the highest temperature I have ever worked in, 57C! Admittedly, it was inside an air portable radio station container (I think we knew them as "Airtech Containers". Before going to work in it, I decided to leave it for a few hours until the sun had moved on a bit, with the outside temperature hovering around the 50C mark, so didn't actually enter it until approx 17:00. Still it was horrible enough that I had to wear my beret to stop the flood of sweat running into my eyes!
KelvinD is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 12:46
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
some of my professional flying colleagues seem to be sceptical experts on almost all known topics if their own word is anything to go by
As if by magic, a skeptical yet ignorant 'expert' arrives:
What is not mentioned is that many of the recording sites such as Heathrow are now surrounded by more tarmac, concrete and sources of direct heat such as air conditioning units than ever before.

It's sad that there's such a strong inverse correlation between actual knowledge of a subject, intelligence, and willingness to talk about a subject in expert terms.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 13:11
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Nemrytter View Post
As if by magic, a skeptical yet ignorant 'expert' arrives:


It's sad that there's such a strong inverse correlation between actual knowledge of a subject, intelligence, and willingness to talk about a subject in expert terms.

Says the only real expert on here....
Hussar 54 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 13:35
  #9 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 75
Posts: 16,487
KelvinD, we had the same cabin temperature after a low level sortie in Malaysia. We drank a gallon of squash each and no pee afterwards. We felt chilled emerging into the cool air at Tengah, a mere 35.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 16:37
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 358
Don't people dislike sneering experts looking down their noses at anyone who has an opinion that is slightly at odds with their expertise?

Exspurt:
'Ex' is a 'has been'
'Spurt' is a 'drip under pressure'.

(This is of course Jet Blast, us hoypoloy can say things like that!)
Trossie is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 16:44
  #11 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 702
Mr Nemrytter sir,

When I last visited the met office at Heathrow (station 03772 if I recall correctly) as a humble observer, the land to the north was considerably less congested than it is today. Lunch and tea breaks were very often taken on the roof of the obs building adjacent to 27R / 09L but I digress..... happy days. I left just before everything at HQ moved to Exeter and was involved in running some of the early climate models so who knows, perhaps our paths met. It's always nice to exchange views with another climatologist so if you don't mind discussing the subject with a somewhat slightly sceptical former professional then I look forward to learning more about your views.

Also, I post under my own name so my chums on this board know exactly who I am.
B Fraser is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 16:51
  #12 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 75
Posts: 16,487
Hoi Polloi


😈
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 17:09
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 71
Posts: 642
Pontius N: Pleasant, isn't it (57C)?
In my previous post, I mistakenly said that was the hottest temp I had ever worked in. Reflecting on that, I remembered one of many odd jobs I had immediately after leaving the Army; working with refractory products. More specifically, I used to repair or re-install refractory cement in places where repairs etc were needed. Most of the work was in power stations, re-lining boiler walls but I often had jobs in a few glass works around the London area. Glass furnaces are generally built of fire brick and raised on a steel gantry. The glass was melted via a series of oil burners let into ports along each side. Frequently, there would be patches of wear in some parts of the walls and I would be asked to repair these. This consisted of the glass company removing a burner from a port opposite the defective section of wall and I would come along with a contraption that blew dry refractory cement at fairly high pressure up a line to a nozzle. The nozzle had a brass ring round it with holes in and a water supply connected to this ring (like an inside out watering can rose). The water mixed in space as the dry powder left the nozzle and stuck to the wall. To repair the opposite wall, I would screw a length of scaffolding tube onto the nozzle to give the reach across the furnace. The temperature in this furnaces was between 1100C and 1200C and the routine was to poke the tube into the hole, taking care not to let it dip into the molten glass, open the nozzle and get as much material as I could onto the wall. While blowing this stuff, I had to keep an eye on the tube and as soon as I saw it showing signs of bending I would withdraw it. Shouting to my mate operating the kit on the floor below, I would withdraw the tube as quickly as I could and throw the whole issue down off the gantry to the floor. I had tongs to grasp the tube with but sometimes I would forget myself and grab the tube in my hand. My hands were covered with 2 pairs each of metallised something or other, probably in those days asbestos, but I often forgot that while working my hands would sweat like heck, soaking the gloves through. And water conducts heat rather well, so frequently the gloves would disappear down to the lower floor along with the tube! I also had to wear a fire resistant hood and welders' goggles while working. The goggles were great for working over the furnace but once the kit was withdrawn from the furnace I could see nothing. It was so hot that the work/rest rotation was something like 30 to 40 seconds work and 20 to 30 minutes rest. Utterly exhausting!
So, I suppose the hottest I have ever worked in was more like 1100C!
KelvinD is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 18:33
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by Nemrytter View Post
As if by magic, a skeptical yet ignorant 'expert' arrives:


It's sad that there's such a strong inverse correlation between actual knowledge of a subject, intelligence, and willingness to talk about a subject in expert terms.
Hello Nemy, I see the break hasn’t changed your attitude, good.
Its year end funding and election time, so time to stir up the troops to get them out to vote. Articles extolling Global Warming/Climate change are starting to appear, as if by
magic.
Follow the money, after all it is coming out of all our pockets to benefit but a few.
fltlt is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 18:58
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 358
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator View Post
Hoi Polloi


😈
Nah, it's ooz wat canna spell.
Trossie is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2018, 23:48
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 66
Posts: 420
I was in Toronto last week and weather man said "29 degrees - feels like 39"
My comment - "Only to a Canadian."

For me, it felt more like 19; moderate humidity, light wind blowing.
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2018, 00:36
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
At the risk of irritating the experts here, I have a comment to make. In statistics, an important marker is the chi-square, which many have heard of. Beyond that, we have what's call the R-squared, or named the 'coefficient of determination'. In simplest terms, it means that there is some number between 0-1 which can be used to describe the nature of the fit of empirical evidence, to a prediction. A resultant - in the case of climate is to determine where we are going in terms of temps, and global warming based on empirical, and statistical data from the past. Without too much muddling in the math, a good R-squared value is > .7 or so, depending on the variability of the data. Given that we have a large sampling from 1910 to today, on a daily or weekly basis, and that the ranges of the values are fairly well grouped, one would postulate that an R-squared value of .7 would be relatively easy to achieve.

Sadly, since the coef of determination has been calculated starting back in the early 70s, the predicted values have been -- abysmal. An R^2 value of .5-ish means that only 50% of the empirical data represents accurately what has been predicted. An R^2 value over .8 would mean that the confidence of the prediction model is closely aligned with the historical measurement gathering. Digging in and finding those coef predictions has been complex, and unless one gets a really sweet R^2(like .8-ish), no one in the industry will publish their work. In the few cases where the work is published, there are about 20 notes of exceptions. Including my favorite, that the raw data has been adjusted for reason X, or Y, or Z(more concrete, less arable land, changes in land use, etc). Once one starts adjusting raw data, the R^2 reliability becomes meaningless.

The climate 'scientists' are the masters of fudging raw data, and moving collection points, and altering readings, and taking into account various factors that might skew their ultimate R^2 value down in the .5 or lower range. This is why some remain skeptical, not me of course - I remain skeptical for completely different reasons(financial shenanigans, follow the political/research money). Anyway, it's been hot in England this summer. I was there back in 1976 summer, and I can't recall any day warmer than maybe 16C. Oh well, I was only there sporadically.

So, in closing, think about a standard chart of variability, where predictions get ever wider, much like the prediction of a path of a hurricane over time. The R^2 value decreases with the distance of the future prediction. Sadly, the climate folks who are mostly all paid by their generation of 'data' confirming a warming trend are without much merit. Taking liberties with the raw data, modifying the collection points, and performing various smoothing algorithms before making their determination leaves me with another skeptical marker.
ethicalconundrum is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2018, 01:10
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Brilliant

It was statistics that got me started on Global Warming. Specifically the work of Steve McIntyre, website Climate Audit.

Math is not my forte, but anyone can see in your post the solidity of your background and right to shake the wagon.

Far more sampling stations in the Northern hemisphere than the South, Urban Heat island ignored for too long, the adjustment of “recent record temps downward” (to allow room for new records?), the foundation of the discussion is on sand, not concrete.

I have yet to see a straightforward presentation of how a “GMT” can be relied upon, without blind faith in a poorly explained background of wildly fluctuating and important parameters.

Your explanation of the statistical foundation is exquisite.

Con
Concours77 is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2018, 02:49
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
You flatter me sir. And, I fell for it. Beyond the R^2:

One of the faults of the algorithm of determination is the issue of excessive clutter of independent variables. Again, eschewing the math, since the coef of determination is a result of the expansion of chi-square, as we add more data points(in climate terms, it means we add more temps, and include dewpoint, RH, pressure, etc), the resultant can only get better(greater R^2 value). This leads to meaningless addition of the data groups, simply for the purpose of reducing the variability of the overall data. Usually called clutter, or in the vernacular sometimes 'frosting'.

To avoid this, there is an adjusted R^2 value. It incorporates a modified combinatorial factor to impose quality limits on the numerator elements. This is done so that as we add data points, those additions which have little or no variability to the original R^2 line, are negated by driving them toward null.

To give an example, if we are to take the value of an airplane(since we're on a av board), the Y = Ax1 + Bx2 + Cx3 + Dx4... could be determined as: Price = airframe hours + engine hours + year built + avionics + .... Thus, the values for those variables will determine the ultimate price of the plane. Note that some of the independent variables will have a negative relationship, i.e. as airframe hours goes up - price will be reflected downward. If we start adding nonsensical independent variables, this adds clutter. Suppose we added 'distance to buy'. While it might cost more for the buyer, the seller has no market differential unless the plane is in Katmandu or central China. This is what's happening sometimes with climate change. The complete Earth climate model is huge. All the data points that we can cram in to our coef of determination will just make any single point in the independent variable group meaningless. This happens all the time, and no - the climate people will not use the Adjusted R^2, as it will show that the data points they've used which are both meaningless, and invariable cause a positively skewed R^2 value. Part of the problem comes in with the ability to crunch large numbers in a vector based computing system. And - climate people inside the govt, or around the govt have some of the biggest systems in the world. It doesn't make their predictions any better, just more dense in terms of data, while not actually adding to the understanding of the central theme of 'temperature increase'.
ethicalconundrum is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2018, 08:07
  #20 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 702
Originally Posted by ethicalconundrum View Post
The climate 'scientists' are the masters of fudging raw data, and moving collection points, and altering readings, and taking into account various factors that might skew their ultimate R^2 value down in the .5 or lower range. This is why some remain skeptical, not me of course - I remain skeptical for completely different reasons(financial shenanigans, follow the political/research money). Anyway, it's been hot in England this summer. I was there back in 1976 summer, and I can't recall any day warmer than maybe 16C. Oh well, I was only there sporadically..
I spent a year or two running numerical models that described the hydrological cycle (rain, evaporation, run-off, retained soul moisture etc.). I left to pursue a more financially rewarding career and bumped into a former colleague who was working on the shiny new greenhouse apocalypse prediction models. I asked him how they were modelling transpiration response to increased CO2. Plants increase their metabolic rates, evaporate more water, grow faster and become more drought tolerant when CO2 increases. Owners of large commercial greenhouses pump the gas in to improve yields. The answer was that the models had totally ignored this factor which would have altered the results.

Make your own minds up.
B Fraser is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.